Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 4 January 2006

Non-vote

I (Iantresman) have copied this entry directly from the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift page:

I don't have time for prolonged bickering about this topic. There is research published in professional astronomical journals that discusses the topic of intrinsic redshifts. Ian has linked to those articles. That alone is enough to justify the existence of this article. As for the writing of the article - that is something that can progress. I don't think it is unfair to make sure that the article states that the hypothesis of intrinsic redshifts is a speculative, minority view. However, there is a use in having this article as a reference to what an "intrinsic redshift" might be.

One of the difficulties is that there are a lot of different controversial redshift mechanisms and some of them may be "intrinsic" and some of them are not. For clarity it should be understood that the Hubble relation defines the cosmological redshift. Expansion of the universe is the accepted mechanism for cosmological redshift. Tired light mechanisms provide another attempt to explain cosmological redshift.

Intrinsic redshift specifically refers to variations in the observed redshift of individual objects (galaxies, quasars ... ) that vary from object to object such that two objects at the same distance might have vastly different redshifts. Note that "intrinsic redshifts" - if real - may be superposed upon the cosmological redshift. So properly speaking, anything that attempts to explain all of the observed redshift as cosmological (expansion, tired light) belongs in the main "Redshift" article - or an article titled "cosmological redshift". Any redshift mechanisms that are superposed upon the cosmological redshift defined by the Hubble relation would properly belong in the "intrinsic redshift" article.

I see no reason to provide any edits to the article until this issue of its existence is resolved. --DavidRussell 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I, Ari Brynolfsson, find that Ian Tresman's article on “Intrinsic Redshift” is good and very neutral. It does not advocate anything and reports the facts. I was therefore surprised to read this morning that ScienceApologist wants to consider its deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy! I find also that the use of a “fringe scientist” for any one that disagrees with some of the absurdities in the contemporary Big Bang cosmology improper. I believe that the use by Ian Tresman of “Intrinsic Redshift” was dictated by the fact that most of the processes he mentioned are more likely to work where the densities are high, such as those found very close to stars, galaxies and quasars. Such redshifts are properly called intrinsic redshifts. The use of “Alternative Redshift Theories” for “Intrinsic Redshifts” is possible, especially, when people like ScienceApologist think that only Doppler like redshifts and/or expansion of the Universe can explain the cosmological redshift.

Plasma redshift (see arXiv:astro-ph/0401420) is special in that it shows that only very hot and sparse plasmas produce the “plasma redshift”. The plasma redshift cross section was, therefore, easily overlooked in the past, as it does not apply to ordinary laboratory plasmas. Plasma redshift applies to the coronas around the Sun, stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. It produces significant redshifts that are properly called “intrinsic redshifts”. In each case it is important that the photon energy lost in the redshift turns into heat in the plasma. For example, it is the main cause for the steep temperature rise in the transition zone to the solar corona. The plasma redshift starts exactly in the transition zone, and results in the steep temperature increase. In addition, the plasma redshift explains the cosmological redshifts. This is possible, because the photon energy lost in the plasma redshift heats the sparse intergalactic plasma. Before we knew about the plasma redshift, the physicist had no means of heating the intergalactic plasma. They were therefore forced to assume that it was very cold. This contradicted many observations. They even had no means of heating the relatively dense coronas around galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The interesting fact is that the same plasma densities and plasma temperatures that are predicted by the good fit to the magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SN Ia, also explain the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The densities and temperatures of the intergalactic plasma explain both the blackbody temperature and the uniformity of the angular intensity. These plasma densities and temperatures also result in the right intensities of the cosmic X-ray background. No adjustment parameters such as “Dark Matter” and “Variable Dark Energy” are needed to explain the observations.

It is misleading to call plasma redshift a “tired light theory”, because it has many characteristics that are not found in the “tired light theory”. Ari Brynjolfsson.

Nonstandard cosmologies and redshift

Thanks for making me aware of that page, I didn't know it existed! A link from redshift is lacking, I'll add it now. But cosmology differs from mechanisms; I don't see how the limited subject of cosmology can include all redshift mechanisms. Harald88 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be clear about mechanisms for redshift and their connection to (nonstandard) cosmology. There are a number of ideas surrounding redshifts that need to be clarified. First there is the simple observation of the redshift. Then there is the mechanism. There are currently only three mechanisms that are accepted as having been demonstrated as sources of proportional redshift and they are covered on the redshift page. There are other ways to get frequency shifts, for example by scattering, thus there is a section on scattering on the redshift page. However, there are also "alternative" ideas about redshifts that are promulgated by nonstandard cosmology proponents for the sole purpose of pushing their ideas about disliking the Big Bang/General Relativity/Physics in general. These include such things as Arp's "variable mass" idealizations, a number of proposals for how to get "plasma redshifts" without blurring (including scattering again -- already addressed on the redshift page), and Einstein-was-wrong (or at least needs to be reinterpretted) ideas that involve a large number of "cranky" ideas. What we tried to do on the redshift page (according to consensus) was to include the mainstream scientific definitions and leave the "haters" of the mainstream to their own pages (e.g. nonstandard cosmology). This isn't good enough for Ian who wants to see an amalgamation article with Arp's ideas, Wolf Effect notions, etc. included as a clearinghouse of "possible" redshift mechanisms regardless of how tenable they are. Problem is, many of these ideas don't rise to the notability necessary for someone to have gotten around to debunking them. Take quantized redshifts. There was just recently an article published from a group in China using redshift survey data that showed that Tift's and Arp's quantized redshift ideas were not statistically relevant. It's not like someone couldn't have done this before, it's simply that after being a "hater" for long enough people don't take you seriously and don't respond right away to your arguments. I think that this should be addressed here at Misplaced Pages, but not on the main science pages.

Moreover, I find the Intrinsic Redshift page to be a blatant example of a POV-fork perpetuated by Ian Tresman because he is upset that consensus went against his ways. This is why I AfDed the article, but the enormous amounts of text on this page makes it unlikely that an administrator will touch it because it looks like it is too treacherous. We need to keep the discussion simple: Ian made the article because he didn't like the direction of the redshift article. That is called a POV-fork and it is against Misplaced Pages Policy. That's why the article needs to be deleted. Some of the information might be relevant for inclusion on Halton Arp's page or on the nonstandard cosmology page or on the Plasma cosmology page or any number of other pages that are about this subject, but this kind of posturing isn't helping the encyclopedia become any better.

--ScienceApologist 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

twice keep on discussion page

(But why do they state it there instead of here where it belongs?) Harald88 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems that Joshua (ScienceApologist) has moved two comments from this page to this page's discussion page .

• The first comment by DavidRussell was originally placed on the Talk page in the section referring to the deletion of this article , and moved to his page by me, and acknowledged as such .
• The second comment by Ari Brynolfsson was presumably placed on this page by himself. Why it has been moved from this page I do not know. The "Articles for Deletion" templates clearly states that people should "share your thoughts on the matter". As far as I can tell from the AfD etiquette section, there is no requirement to vote, nor any requirement to sign pieces.

Joshua? --Iantresman 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these comments addressed the rationale of the AfD nomination at hand. This comment also does not belong on the AfD page which should be kept free of clutter. Clutter includes statements such as (one example) argumentation about what a "plasma redshift" is. --ScienceApologist

More ridiculous behavior. Both comments were clearly supporting the existence of the article. To delete them is underhanded on your part. I specifically stated that Ian had provided peer reviewed references on intrinsic redshifts which justifies the existence of the article. That is certainly relevant since your making the false claim that the article is original research. Your efforts to expunge all mention of non-cosmological/intrinsic redshifts from Misplaced Pages are irrational at best. --DavidRussell 02:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

List

Trying to keep a lot of clutter off the project page so that people can read arguments and not just grocery lists that are reproduced from the main article. Here is the list that Iantresman mentioned for the benefit of User:Art Carlson --ScienceApologist 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC):

• Intrinsic redshift
• Non-cosmological redshift
• Non-velocity redshifts or Non-Doppler Redshift
• Anomalous Redshift or Discordant redshift
• Redshift quantization
• Neutrino redshift
• "Corrected" redshifts

Theories

• Halton Arp's theory
• Plasma redshift
• Greenberger's theory of "variable mass particles" who proposes a "decay redshift" . See also
• Pecker's photon-photon interaction But see
• Evershed Effect
• Urbanovich's external influences
• The Simkin effect
• Effect of Mass on Frequency (?)
• Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle
• Interaction between incident transverse photons and light neutral bosons
• Photon radiation density and path length
• Photon-boson scattering
• Photon motion in the discrete space-time under the photon's own force field.
• Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity
• Inelastic transmission of photons in gases

Observations

• Solar limb redshift
• Anomalous shift from Pioneer VI